Are there differences in judging/evaluation in VJP versus HZP, or are the dogs measured against the same standards? I've read that an HZP dog is expected to show a more "finished" or experienced search than what is looked for in VJP. But how about i.e. Spur/track, is the dog required to show a better performance in tracking to get a 10 in the HZP than what he needs to get a 10 in the VJP?

It would be interesting to hear how folks think about evaluating litters or lines with regards to test scores. Would you place higher value in the average scores in the VJP, or would you rather look at the same scores (for track, nose, search, point...) in the HZP? I know that in reality it's not as black and white as this, but I would like to hear how people reason around this.

Regarding the "search" question...the HZP adds the requirement of "methodical" to the requirements of search during VJP. Everything else is the same. The dog is approximately 6 months older and therefore, is expected to show a maturity level in its work commensurate with the increased age.

Regarding "tracking"...almost no HZPs in the U.S. have "tracking" which is a reference to hare or rabbit work. The hare/rabbit track in replaced with the live duck search.

Regarding evaluating these scores...I look at both. The HZP scores add the human element of the "trained subjects" to the equation. They each show different things and you can't ignore either one. As far as lines/litters...trends can be seen on paper for the litter and the sire, and to a lesser degree...the dam. A sire needs to have a minimum of 40 pups tested to show his propensity for certain traits.

CohanseyDD wrote:Regarding the "search" question...the HZP adds the requirement of "methodical" to the requirements of search during VJP. Everything else is the same. The dog is approximately 6 months older and therefore, is expected to show a maturity level in its work commensurate with the increased age.

Regarding "tracking"...almost no HZPs in the U.S. have "tracking" which is a reference to hare or rabbit work. The hare/rabbit track in replaced with the live duck search.

Regarding evaluating these scores...I look at both. The HZP scores add the human element of the "trained subjects" to the equation. They each show different things and you can't ignore either one. As far as lines/litters...trends can be seen on paper for the litter and the sire, and to a lesser degree...the dam. A sire needs to have a minimum of 40 pups tested to show his propensity for certain traits.

Im not a judge anymore, but I'm not sure that the live duck search actually "replaces" the hare track...

... may think about rewording / rephrasing the statement.

Of course I could be incorrect...

It takes roughly a sample size of 30 to be statistically significant in most applications.

Regardless, it raises the question of how a stud can be used for his full quota of annual breedings before his first litters are tested... potentially a significant numbers of pups on the ground before the data can be collected, let alone digested, eh.

Must be difficult to question the performance of offspring of a stud of such mythical adoration as anything short of perfect...

CohanseyDD wrote:Regarding the "search" question...the HZP adds the requirement of "methodical" to the requirements of search during VJP. Everything else is the same. The dog is approximately 6 months older and therefore, is expected to show a maturity level in its work commensurate with the increased age.

Regarding "tracking"...almost no HZPs in the U.S. have "tracking" which is a reference to hare or rabbit work. The hare/rabbit track in replaced with the live duck search.

Regarding evaluating these scores...I look at both. The HZP scores add the human element of the "trained subjects" to the equation. They each show different things and you can't ignore either one. As far as lines/litters...trends can be seen on paper for the litter and the sire, and to a lesser degree...the dam. A sire needs to have a minimum of 40 pups tested to show his propensity for certain traits.

I've also noted that the search is expected to be methodical at the HZP, while there doesn't seem to be any mention of "higher standards" of judging for the other subjects, and this was part of what sparked my question. Since (tracking) nose, search nad point are regarded as inherited traits (anlagefächer) at the HZP as well, it would be interesting to hear how these are judged in comparison to the VJP.

It's interesting that you bring up the duck search (search behind the duck), the last inherited trait in the HZP. How is the value of this subject generally viewed? Is it viewed strictly in terms of working ability in the water, or is it a further test of nose/will to search/hardness that also carries over to usefulness in other hunting tasks? In other words, is the search behind the duck evaluated in the HZP mainly in order to maintain the waterworking abilities of the dogs, or is it a test of inherited traits in a broader sense?

I'm taking my first dog through the JGHV system next year (picking up the pup quite soon!), and I am trying to learn as much as I can about the philosophy of the testing system. The test subjects themselves are quite straightforward, but the reasoning behind them is more difficult to fully understad. I've previously run my Wachtelhunde through a very similar testing system, but the product (the wachtelhund breed) is quite different from the versatile pointing dogs.

3drahthaars wrote:Im not a judge anymore, but I'm not sure that the live duck search actually "replaces" the hare track...

... may think about rewording / rephrasing the statement.

Of course I could be incorrect...

It takes roughly a sample size of 30 to be statistically significant in most applications.

Regardless, it raises the question of how a stud can be used for his full quota of annual breedings before his first litters are tested... potentially a significant numbers of pups on the ground before the data can be collected, let alone digested, eh.

Must be difficult to question the performance of offspring of a stud of such mythical adoration as anything short of perfect...

3ds

As a (former) judge, your thoughts on this subject would be very appreciated Both regarding the duck search in the HZP, and the difference in judging between the VJP and HZP.

I very much agree with you regarding the use of studs. However, I guess a large reason for this is that studs are very often picked on the basis of their own test results, and the simplified conviction that a good hunting-/trialdog is always a good producer. In my opinion it takes more knowledge and skill to use young studs successfully than older ones where you can easily find statistics of how the dogs produces.

German test system or JGHV requires in the HZP /AZP to be finished as a trained retriever. Germans have been more thoughtful about the retrieve than the point , but pointing and upland field work is becoming relevant. I did a study one time for a chapter , and 95% + of dogs that fail the HZP is basically because of lack of training for the retrieve. Unless a test publishes that a track will occur in the autumn test , tracking would only be evaluated if it presents it self during a field search. It would have to be quit significant to actually be scored. Search in field (upland) are supposed to be methodical in spring as well as autumn. The Ult. test bases is based on obedience throughout the test subjects. Some handlers fail on the blood track as well as the fox retrieve due to the weight of the fox.

RDJ wrote:Are there differences in judging/evaluation in VJP versus HZP, or are the dogs measured against the same standards? I've read that an HZP dog is expected to show a more "finished" or experienced search than what is looked for in VJP. But how about i.e. Spur/track, is the dog required to show a better performance in tracking to get a 10 in the HZP than what he needs to get a 10 in the VJP?

It would be interesting to hear how folks think about evaluating litters or lines with regards to test scores. Would you place higher value in the average scores in the VJP, or would you rather look at the same scores (for track, nose, search, point...) in the HZP? I know that in reality it's not as black and white as this, but I would like to hear how people reason around this.

RDJ, If you haven't yet, check in with your breed club for a 'local' training group. Hopefully it's true in other parts of the US, but out here in the NW, groups for JGHV affiliated breeds, as well NAVHDA (with a lot of people doing both) can be a good source for insights. Coordinators of the Training Groups are also often found judging, which is very helpful. For that matter, if you can't find anyone local in your breed club, check in with some of those other JGHV affiliated breed clubs too. It's a good sign if you hear, "It's about the dogs.."

Regarding the scores for evaluation. Good scores in either the VJP or the HZP are not a bad thing, but they don't tell all. You'll hear it at the test, "This is just a little bit of one day for you and your dog." A good day or a good duck can happen, as well all the wheels come off. Looking at the scores for a litter (for either test) is good, but how many litters will actually have all the pups tested? Are the tested pups trained and handled by first time owners, 'skilled, seasoned amateurs' or pro trainers? End of the day, scores are a decent hint, at the least. Does the pup have some abilities of the natural sort? Was the pup trainable?

That you can tell from scores. It won't replace what your eyes could see watching that pup run the test though.